Because Slony documentation warns : *"Reasonable,"** in this context, is on
the order of a dozen servers. If the number of servers grows beyond that,
the cost of communications increases prohibitively, and the incremental
benefits of having multiple servers will be falling off at that point.*
Moreover, I think a remote site could not have the same level of network
availability than a LAN, because of external constraints. And I think that
isolation is preferable in this case.
Isn't it ?
J
2008/9/24 Andrew Sullivan <ajs at crankycanuck.ca>

> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 04:35:18PM +0200, J=E9r=F4me Jouanin wrote:
> > Hi,
> > We have a first site with a cluster of 1 master and 9 slaves replicated
> by
> > Slony.
> > We planned to build a remote backup site with the same configuration.
> > The network link between these two sites will be Gb.
> > By reading documentation, I'm going to activate slony's log shipping to
> send
> > data from local master to remote master.
> > Is it the best way to send data between a local master and a remote
> master
> > of slony independents clusters ?
>
> Why not just replicate to the remote site from one (or, I'd suggest,
> >1) of the replicas in the first site?  This way you don't have to
> fool around with log shipping, which is a little less good with the
> feedback.
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at commandprompt.com
> +1 503 667 4564 x104
> http://www.commandprompt.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Slony1-general mailing list
> Slony1-general at lists.slony.info
> http://lists.slony.info/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.slony.info/pipermail/slony1-general/attachments/20080924/=
c187b985/attachment.htm